ချေးငွေရလိုမှုအကြောင်း(Part Five)

 ဆရာကြီးဦးမြသင်ကြားပို့ချချက်များ

ချေးငွေရလိုမှုအကြောင်း(Part Five)

——————————————————-

10 LBR ( F B ) 54 

MAUNG KYI vs. 1. MA MA GALE, 2. PO HLINE.

Before Sir Daniel Twomey, Chief Judge, Mr.Justice Ormond, Mr. Justice Maung Kin and Mr. Justice Pratt.

အမှုတွင်၊တရားရုံးချုပ်တရားဝန်ကြီးချုပ် Sir Daniel Twomey က-

“သက်သေခံအက်ဥပဒေပုဒ်မ၉၁သည်ငွေချေးကြောင်းမြင်တွေ့သူတို့၏နှုတ်သက်သေခံချက်ကိုပိတ်ပင်ခြင်းမပြုကြောင်း”ဖြင့်စီရင်ထုံးစာမျက်နှာ၆၇နှင့်၆၈တွင်အောက်ပါအတိုင်းစီရင်ထုံးအကိုးအကားဖြင့်အကြောင်းပြသည်ကိုလေ့လာမှတ်သားနိုင်ရန်ဖော်ပြလိုက်ပါသည်-

“Section 91 of the Evidence Act prevents the contract embodied(ပုံဖော်သည်) in the promissory note from being proved except by the note itself; but it is going much further(အတော်စကားကျွံမည်ဖြစ်သည်) to hold(ဆုံးဖြတ်သည်) that the lender cannot recover on the original consideration if the promissory note is excluded.

He would have a good cause of action if no promissory note had been executed and we have to consider carefully whether he loses this cause of action altogether(လုံးလုံးလျားလျား) if he is so unfortunate as to have taken a promissory note which turns out to be a nullity.(ပျက်ပြယ်ကြောင်းပေါ်ထွက်လာသည်။လက်စသတ်တော့စက္ကူစုတ်ဖြစ်နေသည်။)

Section 91 offers no obstacle(အတားအဆီးဖြစ်စေသည်မဟုတ်။) if it is held that there is n all cases of money lent a cause of action apart from(မှအပ) the promissory note.

On this point the learned Judges (Collins, C.J., ., and Parker, J.) in the Madras High Court in Pothi Reddi v. Velayudasivan (10) (1886) I. L. R. 10 Mad., 94.remarked(မှတ်ချက်ပြုသည်။) as follows:”It is a necessary condition to every written contract that the terms should be orally settled before they are reduced to writing, and to hold, when such a contract has been reduced to writing, that a plaintiff can take advantage of the absence of a stamp on the promissory note to sue at once for the return of money which he may have contracted to lend for a fixed period, would entirely defeat(ပျက်ပြားစေသည်။) the provisions of section 91 of the Evidence Act." 

But is the defendant entitled to take advantage of the absence of a stamp so as to evade his liability altogether(လုံးလုံးလျားလျား) ? 

It is true, as the learned Judges pointed out in the above case, that the reduction of a contract to writing is necessarily(မလွဲမသွေ) preceded(အလျင်ကျသည်။) by an oral settlement of the terms. 

But in the case of a loan for which a promissory note is executed there is something more than a preliminary settlement of terms.

One part of the contract is actually executed by payment of the money and the promissory note can be regarded merely as security for repayment or as providing for the mode of repayment. 

The whole question before us turns on(အပေါ်မူတည်သည်) whether a separate independent cause of action can be implied from the payment and acceptance of the money and whether this implied cause of action revives if the promissory note is excluded.

In Sheik Akbar's case it is admitted that there may be a complete separate cause of action before the bill or note is given, but Sir Richard Garth mentions another class of cases as furnishing no cause of action independently(မသက်ဆိုင်ဘဲ) of the bill or note, i.e. where the original cause of action is the bill or note itself."

———————————————————

မှတ်ချက်။     ။Bill ကို၁၉၅၂ခုနှစ်၊ပြည်ထောင်စုမြန်မာနိုင်ငံတော်ဘဏ်အက်ဥပဒေပုဒ်မ၃၉(၁)(ဃ)တွင်၊ငွေပေးမိန့်လက်မှတ်(bill)ဟုပြဌာန်းထားသည်။

စီရင်ထုံးပါ”note”သည်”promissory note”၏အတိုကောက်ဖြစ်သည်။

——————————————————-